Wealthy Give More Overseas, Less to Education, Religion

By Robert Frank

It is no surprise that charitable giving by the wealthy declined last year. According to a report released today by Giving USA and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, individual giving fell an estimated 0.4% in 2009, to $227.41 billion–a fairly mild drop. Total giving, by the wealthy, companies, foundations and bequests, fell 3.9% to $303.75 billion.

Philanthropists like Philip Berber are focusing their charity overseas.

More significant was the shift in where the dollars are going.

According to the report, charitable donors are moving away from the the standard charitable causes–religion, education and the arts–to focus their money on health, human services and the overseas poor.

Here are some of the new winners (and losers) in philanthropy:

THE LOSERS

RELIGION–Giving to religion still accounts for 33% of total giving (the largest sector). But it declined 0.7% to $100.95 billion.

EDUCATION–Giving to education declined 3.6% to an estimated $40 billion. It was the second straight year giving to education fell.

So more philanthropy is going overseas to the 'poor'. You know, I have a quaint theory about how the rich should donate their money: They should donate it back into the societies from whence it came. Gates made his billions from predominantly America. Then that is where the bulk of his philanthropy should go. A few years ago an old woman named Brooke Astor died in New York. She was the last surviving heir to the famous Astor family fortune. She was the widow of Vincent Astor, fifth generation of that family. Before she died she gave away all her money to charities and cultural orgainizations in New York. Her theory was;
' The Astor family made its money in New York, and that's where it should be returned.'
She was right.

8:17 pm June 17, 2010

TiredOfFlippingTheBill wrote :

LotusRainForest -- religions are the most efficient charities. They get far more good out of a dollar than other charities.
The problem with most environmental charities is that they cost too much (overhead way too high) and most fund pretty foolish projects. I am very familiar with agriculture and being an environmentalist. They all want 0% of this or that in something. They need to get real. There are no alternatives yet to coal and crude oil. I wish there were.
The US pays for the world's drug development -- period. No other country will let the pharms charge $100 for a single pill. You can only bilk people in the US. Watch over the next couple of years as socialized medicine fails all over the world. It is too expensive. There are better ways, but no one wants to hear or implement them -- look at Switzerland.

12:00 pm June 17, 2010

LotusRainforest wrote :

I only wonder what's the point of donating to religion. Are your priests starving? Did your temple collapse? Why on Earth do you need that money? For the poor? Then what's the point giving it to you first if you're gonna give it to some NGO anyway? I never donated for religion. Never. Maybe narrow-minded theists fear something. Anyway, I only donate for the starved, environment and health. There's not much point donating for something else. International aid is far more important. Why do you want money? To display those worthless picasso paintings? It's just paint on carbon-based canvas. Get over it. I ain't donating for this, I'm gonna give something to Oxfam today. I didn't waste money on cars and mortgages, so I'm gonna dedicate my fortune for the starved in Asia, Africa and South America. But hey, what about the poor in developed countries? Are they really poor or did they just waste all of their money? I ain't giving you anything if you spend it all in mcdonalds and those e.coli and salmonella infested kfc. How can anyone eat this garbage? Because it is garbage. Read about advanced meat recovery. The leftovers that used to be discarded as garbage are now put into your food. Hot-dogs are nothing more than ground up chicken legs and intestines. Mmmmm, right? Have some respect for yourself and go to a japanese restaurant. At least you won't be obese.

10:37 am June 16, 2010

TiredOfFlippingTheBill wrote :

I find Karl's remarks interesting. I think what he is saying is probably true in Europe at Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell. I found it interesting that the first 2 items which he thinks are losers are the ones where we contribute most of our monies.

We don't give money to human services entities, because their cost to deliver services is usually too high. Money is hard to make, so I do not waste it -- period.

We don't give to most environmental groups -- can't remember who said "Never donate money to an environmental group ran by lawyers". We believe in protecting the environment, but also believe in applying common sense. I don't believe in Global Warming -- data tells me this is not happening. The current hybrid cars are ultra polluters. Read up on both topics with an open mind.

About The Wealth Report

The Wealth Report is a daily blog focused on the culture and economy of the wealthy. It is written by Robert Frank, a senior writer for the Wall Street Journal and author of the newly released book “THE HIGH-BETA RICH.”